prop 8 Q&A

Question:
OK. i just got off the phone with my mom and she was going off about prop 8 and signs being stolen, etc. i had her give me a run down of the day-to-day effects that prop 8 not passing would have. in other words, i see the principles involved, but if we're in favor of domestic partnerships having ALL the same rights and privileges as traditional marriages, then what difference does it make whether 8 passes?

the first thing she said was that churches could be sued for not marrying same sex couples. i asked zp about that and he said it was a red herring -- freedom of religion would prevent that from happening. my mom said she's read cases. i'm coming to you for the real scoop.

Answer:
Great question... and I have a long response :) - please feel free to pick it part

According to California law (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5) Registered Domestic Partners are given the same rights as married spouses. But although that code extends the privileges of spouses to domestic partners, it does not necessarily expand laws involving families or marriages to include domestic partnerships. For example, a requirement to teach children in public schools about marriage does not necessarily require that domestic partnerships be taught as well. That is one of the primary points that one of the more recent Yes on 8 ads makes and it is founded upon an experience by a couple in Massachusetts (where same-sex marriage is legal) - that opening this up will require that where marriage is used, it will need to include both heterosexul and well as homosexual marriages. So, while those against prop 8 argue that there is no impact to families, children, etc. of course that is not true.

Anywhere the term marriage is used in a law, then that law will clearly expand and change with this redefinition. This redefinition of marriage will affect existing laws referencing marriage and it will be a law that other laws will be founded upon. A precedent will be set and the interpretations that will follow may be quite far-reaching (as it will evolve over time and over generations). We can only speculate what its effects may be.

Now all of this, of course, means that there is indeed a legal distinction between the privileges of a marriage and those of a domestic partnership (as the Opposition truthfully states). Which then begs asking the following questions: Are the rights of domestic partnerships sufficient? Are the privileges of marriage a civil right? This is where the Yes on 8 would say yes - the domestic partnership is sufficient and no - the privileges of marriage are not a civil right. The No on 8 of course argues the opposite. I personally believe that some privileges (such as driving licenses and, yes, marriage licenses) are not rights, but are granted by the government according to standards in the community's best interest.

That is regarding the differences between the two. I have thoughts on freedom of religion, but I'll save that for later :)

kt

ps
The French National Assembly commissioned a study / report on this very issue and you can read the English abstract here:
http://www.preservemarriage.ca/docs/France%20-%20summary.pdf

Particularly interesting that a socially liberal European nation is more willing to thoughtfully study and research the issue before redefining social norms than the state of California is :) Instead we use judges and propositions to emotionally address social policy....